If you follow politics, you know that Barack Obama last night effectively got down on his hands and knees behind Hillary Clinton, and a legion of African-American voters and college graduates pushed her over and everyone laughed at her for failing and pretending not to know she failed.

The news networks had round-the-clock coverage last night of the primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, during which time they hurled as many pundits of varying colors, ages, genders, and lack of stupidity, in addition to assaulting your neurons with as many graphs, exit polls, entrance polls, demographic breakdowns, county-by-county results, and other sundry facts than you can possibly handle.  CNN was particularly adept at this, employing a touch screen map of Indiana where analysts could whirl around the state at breakneck speeds to show up-to-the-second vote tallies and make it all sorts of interesting colors.

The only problem is, nobody really knows what these numbers mean for the campaigns.  Certainly, Obama exceeded expectations in North Carolina and Indiana, winning an obscene majority of African-American voters along the way, nearly winning both in the process, but how can we really get tapped into the nuts and bolts of each campaign at this point?

Look at the people the candidates want presented as their constitutents on national television.  Yes, when Obama and Clinton both delivered their speeches before North Carolina and Indiana as the results trickled in, the campaigns each hand-selected members of the audiences in an attempt to craft a wide-ranging coalition to stand behind the candidate as he or she espoused about the greatness of this nation and their hopes to lead it.  They made the greatest efforts to find people of varying races, genders, ages, and economic status, in order to show the nation and the world that people of all sorts support this candidate.  Also, as the two went on and on and on in platitudes, you find your eyes drifting from the candidate, whose physical appearance we have had the opportunity to relentlessly critique and evaluated through innumerable photographs and video, onto the audience members, to see which parts of the speech they like the most.  So I purport that we can look at these television-friendly attendees to gain some insight into the status of each campaign.

First, we start with last night’s winner, Senor Obama:

As you can see, his tireless staffers have managed to pull in young and old, white and black, male and female, handsome and above average.  It looks like Helen Hunt’s no doubt nicer cousin has made an appearance in the lower right.  An impressive effort of attractive and varied countenances.

Now onto Ms. Clinton:

Well, Chelsea looks nice.  There appears to be an albino over her left shoulder, a chubby person next to him who is either a babyfaced young man or a lesbian.  Then, two rows above him, there appears to be a biker transvestite who came to the rally with a woman who thinks it’s a fine idea to show support for a presidential candidate by placing a sticker square in the middle of your forehead like a kindergartener who got into his teacher’s prize drawer and covered himself in “Grape Job” stickers.

This is the best her campaign could come up with.  It does not bode well, because no country was ever won on the backs of the homely.